Our 10th Anniversary was this year, and as our gift to each other, we decided to 'treat' ourselves to a new D-SLR camera. We settled on the new Nikon D80. It arrived today, and I've been playing around with it. I LOVE this camera.
Now, I just have to go sailing and get some good shots to post. :)
sailing shots...we need sailing shots.Glad you're happy with your new camera :o :o
Bump! ;D
Capn Smollett-
No feedback on the new camera yet? No photos from it yet??? What's going on??? I'm actually looking at getting the D80 as my new camera early next year, as my D70s is getting a bit long in tooth. I hope you got some big (2GB+) cards for it...
Quote from: AdriftAtSea on December 23, 2006, 07:13:22 PM
Capn Smollett-
No feedback on the new camera yet? No photos from it yet??? What's going on??? I'm actually looking at getting the D80 as my new camera early next year, as my D70s is getting a bit long in tooth. I hope you got some big (2GB+) cards for it...
Hehe, mostly just practicing and trying to get used to it. I've taken some pics around the house at a Christmas party we attended last night.
So far, I love it. It does a really good job in "auto" mode which seems to handle by far most of the 'casual' situations very well. The picture quality is excellent, imo. It interfaced flawlessly with GTKam on Linux, which made me happy, too. :)
Since my wife actually ordered it and was in charge of 'accessories,' she got a 4 GB SD card for it. It holds about 1100 pictures of "Normal" size and "High" quality. Should do pretty good.
The battery that came with the camera seems to last for a couple of hundred indoor shots with flash, at least. I have not run the batt completely down so I cannot be sure. The flash recharges instantly, or near enough so.
I've never used a D70, but it was my first choice until my wife one day said "what about the new one, the D80. What's different about it?" From my reearch on the two, two things I think you will like on the D80 over the D70 are a larger screen and the faster focus. This D80 autofocuses so fast it is very nearly point-n-shoot. Does the D70 have a backlit command window on top? I think that might be one of the differences, too. If so, three things. I liked that the D80 taks SD cards, though initially I was inclined toward the CF's used by the D70 (or am I getting it confused with another model?).
We got the 18mm-135mm kit lens with the camera, and it is probably the best kit lens I've ever used (which is admittedly, not a lot. I trend away from kits and in the past bought bodies and lenses separately). I'd prefer a little bit faster lens (it's f 3.5 near 'normal' focal lengths) but seems to do okay. Of course, it takes older lenses just fine. I tried it with an older Nikor 50mm my sister gave me and the autofocus and exposure all function as they are supposed to.
One complaint, if you can call it that. I have several flash units that I was hoping to reuse, but Nikon recommends (actually warns) against using anything other than their specific models of Speedlights. The stated reason for this is other flashes may possibly damage the camera and will, of course, void the warranty. That makes me reluctant to use my trusty Vivatar 383 that has been on several continents. Also, my old Metz is out since there is no 'traditional' sync jack and I'm sufficienty scared off by the warning against using a hot shoe adaptor. Oh well. At least the on-camera flash would be enough to fire my slaves for any studio work I might find myself doing.
(Aside: I was just given as a hand-me-down one of the compatible Nikon Speedlights, but it does not work at all. I may try to get it working or may not fool with it).
If your D70 is aging and you are looking for a replacement, the D80 would be a good candidate (already have all you lenses, etc). I would give the D80 a high recommendation. The first things that impressed me about it was "fast" and "simple," with of course ALL the flexibility you might require to get the shot you need. The flexibility is hidden just enough to be out of the way but not so far as to be hard to find. It's my understanding that the D80 has a dramatically improved menu system.
Hope this helps. I'll post some pics when I get something other than my around the house practice shots. ;)
Capn Smollett-
You'll probably want to try using it in RAW mode, if you've got the software to handle RAW files. The one problem is that I don't know of any good GUI RAW software for Linux. The battery life on the Nikon DSLRs has always been quite impressive.
The 18-135 should give you an effective 35mm focal length range of 28mm to 200mm roughly. A pretty useful range, although the lens is a bit on the slow side. If you do have any specific questions, I used to teach photography and have been using the Nikon gear for over 25 years... and their digital gear I consult on with a bunch of pro photogs.
One website I think you'll really like is strobist.com. Its a blog about off-camera low-cost flash setups. Has a pretty good basic 101 about doing this. Your Metz and Vivitar flashes would work nicely for it, if you just got some optical slaves for them. They also have a flickr group and some really impressive photos in the group. Let me know what you think. It's run by a guy who shoots for the Baltimore Sun.
I'd also highly recommend getting a good UV or Skylight 1a filter to use on the lens if you're going to be using it on the boat. Helps prevent salt water from getting on the actual good glass.
DK
Yeah, we used to run Skylight filters on all our lenses to protect them...I have several. But they are all 50 mm, so I need to pick one up for the larger diameter lens.
Been shooting since I was about 10, on and off "professionally" for about 22 years. My Dad and I ran a part-time freelance outfit for a while - I did mostly landscapes (lots of really cool old barns in really cool settings in Western NC, and waterfalls, too), and my Dad did some model shots for some girls trying to get started.
I used to have some gear to set up that Vivatar off-camera, but I think either my Dad got rid of it or it got lost in one of my many moves. I'll have to look into that. For the short term, though, the on-camera flash seems adequate for the more casual shots. I can also crank up the ISO if need be, if I don't mind the loss of quality. BTW, the D80 has a really good High ISO Noise Reduction capability, but I have not played with the higher ISO settings much. (I used to love to shoot Ektachrome 64, so I was never a big 'fast film' fan...the highest I went to in practice was 400).
I'll also need to pick up a remote for it since my old cable releases won't work. ;) That will help with the tripod low-light stuff.
I've been thinking about some set-ups for low light, long exposure shots from the boat.....With this camera, I'm getting excited about photography again (my little 1.5 megapixel piece of garbage point-n-shoot just did not cut it). Since losing my OM-1 to age, I've been "out of the loop."
I have found that with the digitals even using 30 or 25 shutter speeds the shot is still clean. FYI
Long-exposure photos from a boat... hmmm..either your anchorages are a lot calmer than mine or you want blurry photos. :D
The advantage of using RAW mode, even though the files are a lot bigger, is that you have a lot more data to work with. The RAW mode files are essentially the camera sensor data in computer readable format. You can play with the white balance, sharpness, exposure and a bunch of other things if you shoot in RAW mode, and you can often get much better quality from the image by doing so. If you shoot in JPEG mode, the camera, which has relatively limited intelligence and computing resources, ends up making the decision on white balance, exposure, sharpness and image compression. The JPEGs are only 24-bit color, where the RAW files are imported at 48-bit color, and have much greater tonal range.
In a lot of ways, shooting with a digital camera in RAW mode is more like shooting with color negative film. Shooting with a digital camera in TIFF or JPEG mode is more like shooting with color slide film. With RAW format images and color negatives, the images are much more open to exposure correction and color balancing, since you have more options in the post-processing stages. Shooting in JPEG or TIFF mode or slide film is less versatile, since if the information isn't there, it can't be restored, since much of the original data for the image is lost in the camera, before it ever gets to the computer.
Moose Petersen has a pretty good RAW workflow setup on his website, but I don't know of much software, besides possibly DCRAW that work in Linux. GIMP is also not very well suited for image retouching due to its color space limitations.
Santa gave us an Olympus E-500 DSLR as an early Christmas present, and I've got to say I love it. We got a 1 GB card, and a lens backage that gives us the equivalent of 28-300 mm lenses.
So far, the pictures have been fantastic. The camera even has a "sunset" mode that I tested at St. Pete Beach, FL, two days ago (back in Mass. now, and it's actually snowing!).
I'd really be interested in photography-related threads, as I was once a fairly experienced 35-mm photographer (newspaper work on Tri-X mostly).
My image-processing software can handle RAW data files, but I haven't dealt with them yet. I'm still learning how to use this wonderful camera.
When I get back aboard, I'll try to post some sailing pix.
--Joe
have to disagree on one point with drifty (so what's new?). using positive film (slides) allows you no end of control and versatilty to play with in the darkroom.
This is why so much fashion and art photography was done on positive film. It has very different qualities. the blacks are sleaker. the entire image looks "faster" and more glamourous. Printing form positive film onto chromic paper allows amazing results that I would say go beyond what all but the very best can achieve with colour neg film. Of course the positive film never even comes close to the luminosity and silver content of good B&W negatives...but that really is a whole different ball game and style.
Night time, long exposure, positive film shots are some of the most drippingly gorgeous images that can be imagined.
If you like warm colours, reds and golds and such, then Kodak negative film can't be beat.
growing stuff like plants and leaves, Fuji neg film.
etc.
everything has its place and EVERYTHING can be manipulated to achieve the desired image.
Alex.
Quote from: Fortis on December 31, 2006, 07:52:06 AM
have to disagree on one point with drifty (so what's new?). using positive film (slides) allows you no end of control and versatilty to play with in the darkroom.
I agree, Alex. We used to shoot E-64 and then run type R prints in the darkroom. I'm not sure why there is the notion that such printing cannot be manipulated in the darkroom (I've seen this on websites, too), as I've done it myself. Maybe there is not the full versatility of using negative film vs. reversal film, but darkroom work CAN be done.
You guys are strange! I prefer to manipulate my photo in a lighted room, that way I can see the keyboard to the computer I'm using to "tweak" my photos with! ;D
Actually, the real reason that chrome films were used in the fashion industry is that the color separations and film scanners at the time couldn't deal with color negative films. Slide films, unless very accurately exposed, generally hold less information in them than do negative films. This is due to the film development process used for chrome films, where the image is developed, the film bleached and chemically fogged to produce the "positive" image. Unfortunately, even the slightest bit of overexposure tends to lead to the highlights blowing out completely—clear film, and too much underexposure leads to the shadows blocking in almost completely.
Most slide films have an exposure tolerance range of about 1/2 a stop... where you will get a pretty good image. Most color negative films have an exposure tolerance range of about 4 stops, where you will get an acceptable image, and a range of about two stops where you'll get a pretty good image.
Another reason chrome films were often used is that the color saturation of chrome film, especially if it is exposed with a touch (1/4-1/3) stop of underexposure, will give you much better color saturation than was possible with older color negative films. This is still the case, but the differences are far less.
Printing with positive print materials, particularly Cibachrome, would give you very good color saturation... Cibachrome was particularly noticable due to the Azo-based dyes it uses.
I'm not saying that darkroom work can't be done using chromes, but that your range and versatility in results is going to be a good deal more limited.
BTW, the only chrome film that isn't a color film, but produces color slides is Kodachrome. The K14-based films add the dye to the film in the processing, unlike E-6 based films, like Fujichrome and Ektachrome, where the dyes are already in the film as color-coupled dyes. There is no dye in Kodachrome when you buy it... that's why it isn't possible to process without a big, expensive machine.
I'd definitely disagree with Alex's statement that "everything can be manipulated to achieve the desired image." I would rather state that while everything can be manipulated to achieve the desired image, it is much better to start with the right film for the desired results, as achieving the desired results becomes much simpler, and usually much higher quality. I'd also like to see Alex get a full color, fine-grained image print from a T-Max 3200 negative. :D
However, Alex fails to address my main point—which was that shooting with RAW format files in a digital camera will often lead to much better results in the final image than using JPEG or TIFF format files in camera.
From a T-max 100 I can get you that fine grained image....From anything over T-max 400 I would need to make the image about 12feet wide and state that I was deliberately generating an abstract look!
And doing colour washes through B&W (both negs and paper) as well as hand colouring for "real colour" detail over liminious greys are both established fine art techniques (usually practiced by semi-hysterical Wagnerian women...but that could just be my personal experience to date).
As for your point, I think you ran the argument into fairly obvious extremes and I do not feel the need to follow. Yeah, generally shooting color film for colour results tends to be a good notion. Surprise.
My experience was with cibachrome and ektachrome, we could only ever get the "family slide night" quality of kodachrome locally and so didn't use it (way too yellow, based on our tests) Never looked into the hugely different process Kodak employed.
I did introduce a battery powered kicking frog bath toy to the dark rooms of Phillip Institute as an agitator, though. About a week later half the class had one!
(toxic frogs!)
Alex.
I'm with Doug - gimmee the GIMP! ;D
But that is besides the point, which is:
SHOW US THE PICS, MON!
:D :D :D
In my universe, things kind of circle in orbit.... I can not necvessaraly put my hands on things all the time.
I am afraid my digital camera (a better quality Kodak) has burnt up on re-entry..... >:(
I can not find it anywhere, and Rose (who normally keeps much better track of things then I) can not seem to find it either.
Anyway, I am looking for a decient digital camera, preferably waterresistant... and sub $150...
Any suggestions?
The combination of sub $150 and water-resistant is a bit tough.
I'd look at the older Pentax WP or the Olympus equiavlent of it (current model is the 770SW IIRC)... both make a small, compact, water-resistant digital camera that has a 3x optical zoom.
I have the WP, and the picture quality on it is fairly decent. Here is one I took last summer with it.
(http://dankim.com/bsc_cc/pictures/picture-18.jpg)
Sweet pic.
Thanks Captain Smollett...
BTW, the boat in question is the C&C 38, Melissa, that Norm takes care of over at the Boston Sailing Center... from our Cape Ann Circumnavigation last year.
If you don't recognize the red building, it is Motif #1...version two, which was built after the original Motif #1 was destroyed by the Blizzard of 1978. It is often said to be one of the most painted/photographed buildings in the United States. Not too odd considering its location in Rockport, Massachusetts, which is an artists colony of sorts.
I saved this link for waterproof cameras. Haven't really looked into it yet. Do they have an optical zoom?
http://www.goprocamera.com/
Don't really know anything about cameras, or taking pictures. Can't even keep my thumb out of the way.
Rosie, the leeches! Filthy beggars
(http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q30/commanderpete/africanqueen.jpg)
Now you got me curious.
A few water resistant cameras came up when I was looking around:
Bushnell 3.2MP (but no optical zoom)
cheapest I saw for these two about $180:
Pentax Optio line (like the 33WR)
Olympus Stylus line (the 600)
Question for the camera
geeks experts.... ;D
Rose came across this;
Olympus Stylus 770 SW (http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1287)
QuoteShockproof. Waterproof. Freezeproof. Crushproof. Introducing the world's most durable digital camera — the Olympus Stylus 770 SW. You can drop it (from 5ft), dunk it (to 33ft), freeze it (-10°C/14°F) or even try to crush it (up to 220lbf), and it will still take amazing photos. But the 770 SW isn't all brawn and no brains. It features a bright 2.5" Hypercrystal LCD so you can easily compose, view and share your images underwater or in direct sunlight. Digital Image Stabilization (DIS) creates sharp, blur-free pictures, even if your subject is moving. And the 27 Shooting Modes, including movie with sound, allow you to master any shooting situation.
Here is a review. (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/OS770SW/OS770SWA.HTM)
It is a bit more then I wanted to pay, but if it lasts for more then one trip it may well be worth it.... What do you guys think of this?
I don't know anything about it, but if you get one be sure to tell us about it. I don't need one right now, but I know is only a matter of time ;) the Cannon Elph I have I like, but it definitely is not "rugged".
I have the original Pentax Optio WP. It's great little camera. The Olympus is probably even a bit better, since they have a slightly higher MP count than the latest model of the Optio. The only reason I'd stick with the Pentax series if I ever manage to kill my Optio WP is they use SD cards, rather than the somewhat proprietary XD cards that the Olympus uses...
I recommended the 770SW to a friend for Christmas and have heard nothing but praises from his wife about it. :)
BTW, I'd rather go with an Olympus or Pentax over the Gopro mentioned previously in the thread, since they're both well known camera companies with decent optics.
The Dashews use this Olympus for the pictures that they take for use on their website. A friend went swimming with one of these camers in his pocket. When he got back on the boat he took the camera out and took a picture. The camera had no ill effects from going swimming. I plan on purchasing one of these. Dan
QuoteI plan on purchasing one of these. Dan
Thanks for the head's up. I will make sure to avoid shopping for it on Ebay until the 'Bid Master' has made his selection. ;D :D ;) :) ;D
I do like the waterproof/shockproof aspect of the Olympus. What I don't like is the battery pack - it is probably only made by Olympus, and just as probably requires 120V to (re)charge - though there might be a 12V accessory available, I dunno...
I like having a camera which uses AA's, since they are sowidely available and I can recharge them using my house current.
Craig - check the prices at newegg.com : they have great prices.
IIRC, someone makes a third party charger for the Olympus and Pentax that can run off a cigarette lighter.
Dan,
When Rose 'discovered' the Olympus 770 sw (http://www.olympusamerica.com/cpg_section/product.asp?product=1287), I forget you had recommended I take a look at it here;
Quote from: AdriftAtSea on March 13, 2007, 09:30:33 PMThe combination of sub $150 and water-resistant is a bit tough.
I'd look at the older Pentax WP or the Olympus equivalent of it (current model is the 770SW IIRC)... both make a small, compact, water-resistant digital camera that has a 3x optical zoom. ....
Thanks for the recommendation. Thanks also to our good Capt, I will keep an eye on newegg.com. They don't have that model right now though.
The 760 would probably work for me too (dropproof to 5', but not as water proof.... I think I am going to go with the 770.
(http://www.camerasonly.com/productimg/olympus-stylus-770sw-l.jpg)
Here are a couple reviews if anyone is interested;
Imaging resource (http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/OS770SW/OS770SWA.HTM) Scuba diver info review (http://www.scubadiverinfo.com/3_cameras_olympus_770sw.html)
If anyone comes across a real good deal please let me know.
Thanks!
Glad to help. BTW, just got the Olympus 1030Sw... three days ago. Waterproof to 33'... and built like a very small tank. :)
If you're still in the market, I'll take a look around for you...
Olympus 1030Sw looks nice.. too rich for my blood. I don't think I need that kind of resolution.
QuoteIf you're still in the market, I'll take a look around for you...
Thanks Dan.
You can get the 790 SW Olympus Stylus, which is 7.1 MP for $233 HERE. (http://www.digitalmegastore.com/product/?44715&hit_id=12951237&Campaign_id=118&CFID=25405330&CFTOKEN=53667761&sk1=1)
However, you can get teh 850 SW Olympus Stylus, which is 8.1 MP for $238 here (http://www.buydig.com/shop/product.aspx?omid=118&utm_id=14&ref=nextag&utm_source=NexTag&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=OMST850SWB&sku=OMST850SWB).
Hope that helps. :)
Is there a good underwater case for the D-80? How about interchangable lens for 250 and above?
I was using a little Cannon Powershot 70 onboard, but had returned it once already to the factory for warrenty work (everything worked but taking pictures), now the same problem. Time for a change.
It it wasn't so cumbersome, and in need of a super cleaning, I'd go back to my old Rolliflex twin and shoot 120! ::).
yes, there's a good uw housing for the d80. It's rather expensive though, and I'd rather just have a smaller, more portable, camera like the Pentax Optio or Olympus SW Stylus on the boat for most of my use. It is less than the D80 housing costs, and far simpler to deal with on a boat.
Capt. Smollett,
I use a Canon Rebel XTi and do enjoy shooting pictures. The camera is only half the process though, I've been using Adobe Photoshop Elements to process my photos. It is much less expensive than Photoshop and lets me do about anything I want to do. One of my favorite effects is Panorama (stitching shots together). Here's an example of three shots made into one.
(http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c245/pyrat/Sailing/ApproachtotheFrancisScottKeyBridge.jpg)
Francis Scott Bridge, Baltimore Channel heading into the Inner Harbor
I will add my good word for the Olympus kill-proof range. They not only survive sand sea and worshop...they survive my nearly thtree year old son! (Who famously decided to do underwater photography with it int he turtle tank at the Melbourne Aquarium. Why film through the glass when you can get a really good closeup by dipping the camera?)
I actually LOVE the battery system. I found that it lasts so much better than even the best AA type setups. Batteries are shareable between five different makes of camera and there are lots of aftermarket versions and chargers available quite cheaply. I am never going back to aa unless it comes with a magazine loader and a platinum credit card strapped to the side.
I have four batteries and even under extreme filming conditions have never neede to load the third battery, except on the snow trip where battery life was markedly lessened due to cold.
The controls quickly became instinctive, the auto-cheat buttons lthat you are likely to need in an instant are very close to hand. I like it a lot.
Alex.
Fortis-
Why in god's name are you letting your three-year-old handle a camera???
BTW, which Olympus do you have? I have the 1030SW, and an older Pentax Optio as boat cameras. :)
It's just the 820...And why wouldn't I? It is simple enough for him to use and he loves looking at the screen and "catching" things that interest him. It is tough enough to survive him and he is carefull and thoughtfull about using it. Again, why wouldn't I let him?
The other side of that is of course I frequently find myself taking pictures of Miles doing interesting and adventurous things. Catching an oar splash of water, a cloud of flour from enthuisiastic bread making or a dozen other things right in the lens is not at all uncommon. I bought a camera that would be tough enough to survive it, worthwhile enough to get the results at a standard I wanted and cheap enough so that I would not cry too much when it finally did go in the drink or fail a saving throw for "adventures survived".
One of the 820's other party tricks is the rapid shot, where it takes 6 or 10 hi speed shots at one press of a button. It really pays when you are trying to catch your son just as he jumps across something etc...
When I was five I saved up my money earned doing little jobs and bought a box full of old cameras (mostly plastic kodacks) at a sunday fair. I broke a few, lost a few and learnt a lot about photography, so that by the time I went and bought a decent 35mm SLR....I broke it fewer times then I otherwise would have.
The digital camera age makes it even easier for yong ones to do all this.
Hey Fortis,
I don't want to disagree with Dan, who really knows his stuff, but if you're willing to risk possible damage to your Olympus 820, I think it's GREAT that you're letting young Miles learn to take pictures at such an early age.
Photography will probably become an automatic skill for the young feller--and it will probably shape the way he deals with what he sees. You might well be nurturing a future photographic star.
Now, to get back on thread ... if I can only find a suitable boat camera at a suitable price. I've got an Olympus digital SLR, which I love--but I don't like to bring it aboard.
--Joe
Good point Fortis... a three-year old is going to have a tough time damaging a Stylus SW series camera... since dropping it and getting it wet are the two biggest risks... however, my nephews at that age, would have been opening the latches and then dropping it in the toilet... and the camera isn't waterproof if the little doors for the memory or data cable aren't sealed. :)
For anyone looking for a compact, waterproof digital camera to use on your boat, the Olympus Stylus 1050 SW is on sale with a 2 GB card for just $172.
It's a 10.1 MP camera with 3.0x optical zoom. I've got the older model, a 1030 SW, which I use on my boat as a day-to-day boat camera. The major differences between the 1030 and the 1050 are the 1030 is waterproof to a greater depth, 33' vs. 10'; the 1030 has a wider zoom range, 3.6x vs. 3.0x; and the 1030 is advertised as "crushproof" to 220 lbs., which the touch screen based 1050 isn't.
Both use a semi-proprietary XD card, but come with an adapter that allows you to use a microSD card instead.
For more info, click HERE (http://www.dealmac.com/Olympus-Stylus-10-MP-Waterproof-Digital-Camera-w-2-GB-card-for-172-free-shipping/262073.html?ref=rss_dealmac_today)
The XD card is not really proprietary, as they are built for about five major camera brands...And I would not use an sd card instead. The XD seems to store more info for the same capacity. I use an 8gig card in mine and I have never managed to fully fill it even with multiple movies etc.
By comparison, I can fill two 4gig sd cards on a friend's kodak camera in one event-laden day just for stills.
Alex
Alex-
Hate to disagree, but the XD card is semi-proprietary. Only two vendors I know of use it. The Memory Stick is proprietary, since only Sony uses it. This is from one of the digital photography websites:
QuoteIntroduced by Olympus and Fuji in 2002, the xD Picture card is the newest digital camera memory format. Its tiny size - 0.97" x 0.98" x 0.67" - means it can be used in very small cameras. The xD Picture Card can also be used in any CompactFlash compatible camera with the available CompactFlash adapter. It's currently available in capacities up to 512 MB, with larger capacity cards to be available soon.
Since it was developed and introduced by Olymous and Fuji, most current compact digital cameras from those manufacturers use the xD Picture Card media.
The XD card does not store more information than the SD card. An 8GB card is an 8GB card. What it may be is that the two different cameras are using different video codecs and different resolutions. For instance, if a camera is storing photos in RAW format, they are going to be considerably larger files than a camera of the same resolution storing JPG files. Two cameras of the same resolution, storing files in JPG format, can have vastly differing capacities, based on the JPG compression algorithm used, and what level of quality the JPG files were compressed to.
For a really good review and comparison of outdoor, rugged cameras, check www.paddling.net/photography/cameras//html. If anything, the cameras regularly used in canoes and kayaks might have to endure more severe conditiions than most of us experience.
http://www.paddling.net/photography/cameras.html (http://www.paddling.net/photography/cameras.html)
Never did pull the triger on the Olympus Stylus 1050 SW Dan recommneded. Dad sent me a Sony T-1 (IIRC) which is an amazing camera, and has worked very well. It stopped working last time we anchored out to watch the Blue Angles, I kept it protected, but I am afraid the salt air and high humity were too much for it.
In preperateion for the new gallery I am FINALLY going to get a camera.
I read there is an Olympus '6000' series that is waterproof and has a newer, better lens.
What do the camera geeks say? 770sw? 850sw? or have other brands poped up with good cameras that are small boat friendly?
Thanks,
Here's a link to a recent (July 24) article in the New York Times comparing the latest crop of waterproof digital cameras. I can't verify the writer's judgements, but here they are:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/technology/personaltech/23basics.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=waterproof%20cameras&st=cse (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/23/technology/personaltech/23basics.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=waterproof%20cameras&st=cse)
--Joe
nice article, but has a lot of missing information.
For instance, the Olympus cameras come with an adapter that allow you to use a MicroSDHC flash card in it. The MicroSDHC cards are very inexpensive and available in sizes up to 16 GB. BTW, haven't tried the 16GB cards in the Olympus 1030SW I have, but normally use the camera with an 8GB MicroSD card in it. :)
As for recommendations, other than the type of card the camera uses, I'd still recommend the Olympus ruggedized cameras, like the 1030SW, which is about $260 street retail ATM.
The Canon Powershot D10 is a pretty good choice, but a lot bulkier than the Olympus cameras and still has a higher street retail (about $300).
Thanks to you both, the article pretty much leads me back to the Olympus that Dan had originally recommended.
I am looking at this one.
Olympus-Stylus-Tough-6000-Waterproof-Blue (http://www.amazon.com/Olympus-Stylus-Tough-6000-Waterproof-Blue/dp/B001P06Q20)
It looks like the same 10mp camera as the 1050sw, but with a new lens and a slightly longer batery life... for less money. ;D
If anyone sees one on sale, please let me know.
Street price on the 6000 is about $225 (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=olympus+6000&cid=3282534098143191532&sa=title#scoring=p)...
11 days later.....
Would it be worth it for the casual user to upgrade from the 6000 to the 8000? If the 6000 has the new optics, why is the 1030 still more expensive?
I know I am beating this dead horse to death, but I really hate spending a couple boat bucks to be less then happy with the result.
My need of a new camera is so great, I have my new head... still in the box... awaiting a camera so I can take it out to take pictures and install it.
Yes, it IS indeed a sad state of affairs.... :P
The 6000 is only waterproof to 3 meters... not the 10 meters of the 1030..... that makes a big difference in the price of the cameras. AFAICT, most of the other specs are very similar—10.1 MP, 3.6x Optical zoom, etc.. Price difference is about $30 street retail IIRC.
I own a Olympus Stylus 790W, which i've had for a couple of years, awesome camera, good pics, very rugged as my hobbies get a bit extreme (downhill mountainbiking, snowboarding, dinghy sailing, kayaking, hiking) had no problems but the only criticism I can give it is the video camera is awful, but as its sold as a camera thats a minor glitch. Got stung a bit on the XD card which cost me in excess of £50 ($75) but was going on holiday and needed it asap, so had to pay through the nose! Very easy to clean just put it under a lukewarm tap and turn it on and off which opens the lens cover, pretty neat idea, as we use it just for taking snaps think its the ideal camera, oh and the macro lens is very good, cheers max
Ok, one last post with questions and I am going to buy the camera. The 1050 SW seems to be the cheapest right now.... cheaper then the 1050. The one I THINK I want is the 8000, but the 6000 looks good too. Will anyone who is a casual user be able to tell the difference between a 10mp camera and a 12 mp camera?
NO. Megapixel is really not that critical, it's far less important than lens quality, and overall quality of the camera and it's components. I personally owned an old canon point and shoot 2mp camera that took much better pictures than than many newer 5-6 mp cameras (including the newer canons.) 10 vs 12? You wont be able to tell the difference. In fact I often suggest to friends and relatives to buy the lower MP camera (when everything else is the same) simply cause the price difference can be pretty big sometimes. Just like with computers, having the newest bleeding edge model can cost you A LOT more, and yield relatively few benefits for the premium price.
Ken explains it pretty well here:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.htm
Megapixels has to do with the picture quality or grain content--the number of dots per square inch that comprise the picture. An easy comparison is high or low definitiion in TV. For snapshots, no, it isn't a critical issue because you'll always be dealing with 3 X 5 to 5 X 7 print sizes. To the average eye, there will be little to no difference. However, if you ever want to enlarge to 8 X 10 or larger, the difference will quickly become apparent in graininess. Larger poster size enlargements will be impossible if you want to retain any picture quality. If you ever wish to use the shots for story illustration, many print magazines will refuse to accept shots below a certain megapixel quality. You will see this if you look at better quality publications like Good Old Boat or Small Craft Advisor and check their criteria for picture submittal. Another area where it will really matter is if you plan to crop pictures. If the desired area of your picture only fills 20% of the frame, and you crop down 80% and then enlarge, it will show up big time. Whether you subscribe to the megapixel debate or not, many will not accept pictures below about 8 mp. As for 10 vs 12, many professional photographers are still using 10 mp., even for sports photography, which is often greatly enlarged. Just like choosing a boat, the first question is about what you're going to use the camera for. For family pictures, it will make little difference. For professional shooting, you have to meet the demands of the buyer.
I finally did it. I put it off, and finally pulled the trigger.
Thanks to all who helped, I will post my impressions when I get it. I found the
Olympus 6000 'Tough' 10mp camera for $225!
I passed on the 8000 because I agree with THistleCap & s/v necessity, I am not likely to notice the difference. I like the 1030SW, but read that the newer generation are more battery friendly. I am sure I would have been happy with the 1030 though.
The best price was at NewEgg.com (where Kurt had originally recommended I look). It was funny though, the same camera in Blue was $10 more then the one in yellow. ???
I used a promo code I found online, and got $10 off which paid for the shipping. ;D
(http://i.walmartimages.com/i/p/00/05/03/32/16/0005033216781_500X500.jpg)
Good for you!
Being able to shoot without fear will help a lot... I went on a Caribean cruise (a cruise ship) with my family last winter, and saw a guy sitting in the lounge with his nice Nikon camera... his girlfriend berating him because he was afraid to take it outside and expose it to the salt air.
For me the solution was a Canon digital ELPH plus waterproof housing... total ran just over $300 for the pile of goodies. It is waterproof to 30 meters, and easy to use.
The downside, for me anyway, is it in no way compares to my 'real' Canon cameras with L series lenses. But the waterproof housing for those is cost prohibitive.
Faith,
You are going to love it! We have been using an older model of it (the 720SW) for some time now. Takes great photos and was wonderful when I managed to sink our dink (a long story) and realized it was in my pocket. A quick fresh water rinse and all was great!
Most of the photos on our web pages for 2007 and on were taken with it.
I am about to send ours in for new seals (apx. $30.00) and they say it's tested and good to go.
Greg
(http://www.svguenevere.com/2007/gear/camera.jpg)
Just bought a Cannon PowerShot D-10 waterproof/shockproof point-and-shoot digital camera.
I was leaning toward the Olympus Tough 8000, but this got slightly better reviews, and it will take SD memory cards.
So, I went ahead and splurged on the camera.
Right now, we have almost no snow on the ground (it all went south of here, dammit!), and I won't be on the water for a while. So, it remains to see how well it performs.
I'll try to report back after the trip to Bermuda. If it works, who knows, I might even post some pictures (assuming I can figure that out.
--Joe